[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: RH 9 - new glibc



OK then Ed and Jessey.

What target is RH targetted for?

If it isn't sutable for a corporate desktop and it doesn't support off the shelf software that home users want where does it belong?

By the way, I can read and know the difference between depeciated and removed. Usualy when somthing is depreciated that means it is going to disapear sooner than later.

I have supplied patches for cistron radius, sendmail, init scripts and file-utils to name a few. No I don't submit them directly to RH unless it is applicable. I have also assisted RH by encourageing people to use RH and buy the boxed sets for their machines.

Jump off your high horse. Pico is a good editor for quick simple changes, for all else I use vi(m).

You and Jesse are complete morons if you think all developers use emacs or some stupid IDE suite. By the way using vi,pico or nedit, the programs I write compile with out any warnings at all, they also use malloc extensively to eliminate "buffer/string" overflows. The software I develop is NOT GPL due to my company's policy, but I am allowed to provide some snippits of code to help others. Lately most of what I have been doing is with Cistron,PostgreSQL and PHP, but my contibutions to the open source community have helped many people and developers improve their products including a couple of patches for RH.

So, for you and Jesse to come down on me, is insulting and not called for.

Being a developer my self I do know what things cost, but to say that developers cost at least US$100,000/year and that they have to spend more than 4 days on every package every release is ridiculous, or should I say ; Sign me up! I have on a number of occasions tested and built my own (S)RPMS for software not supported by RH, and I don't remember spending 4 days on any of them unless I was enhancing the software to provide more robust features and providing patches to the developers at the same time.

Having developed and maintained mission critical software for the companies I have worked for for the past 10 years on platforms from DOS 3.X to numberous Unix and Unix like platforms, I am not some slouch. I have managed a variety of networked systems since 1984, including helping build many cross platform networks that did not natively support any common protocols. I have used many editors including micromonitor ones I wrote for 6502 and z80 type contoller/convertors I built from scratch {Electronics Engineering was what I graduated with}.

I don't give RHCE/MCSE/... any thought when hiring people, every single person we have hired with such credentials has not been able to meet the job requirements, that experienced people without the certifications have been excellent at.

Ed Wilts wrote:

On Sat, Mar 29, 2003 at 12:28:52AM -0800, Eric Burke wrote:


The bottom line is for a corporate desktop, RH no
longer serves the purpose.



The bottom line is that RH9 is not targetted for the corporate desktop.
That's what Red Hat Linux Enterprise AW is for. If you're trying to use
a product that's not designed for your application and it doesn't do the
job, why are you complaining?


Once compatibility is broken by adding


something no one else is doing, all else is out the window. Sorry, but
the whole NPTL gains nothing...no speed...nothing.No other Linux distro
is using it or planning on it. That in itself breaks compatibility and
the products usefulness.



For your application, AW is the right tool (or at least one of the right tools). NPTL is not in AW.









[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]